Independent Contractor Or Employee – It Can Depend Upon Who Has The Burden Of Proof

Those of us who work in the benefits area understand that the distinction between employee and independent contractor is an important one, but one in which the determination is not always clear. In many cases, the IRS takes the position that a particular worker is an employee, rather than an independent contractor, thereby requiring the employer to pay its share of employment taxes and to withhold income taxes. The individual is also then often eligible for various employee benefits.

In a recent Tax Court decision, the positions of the parties were reversed, with a moonlighting police officer was claiming that he was an employee and the IRS claiming that the moonlighting jobs constituted self-employment so that the fees were subject to self-employment tax.

The individual was a police officer who provided security services during off duty hours. The businesses for which the officer performed the duties did not treat the officer as an employee. The police officer did not pay self-employment taxes on the fees received and instead claimed that he was an employee of the businesses and therefore not liable for self-employment taxes.

The Tax Court considered the same factors that are typically considered in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, namely, the degree of control exercised by the business over the details of the work, the extent to which the worker invests in the facilities used in the work, the opportunity of the worker for profit and loss, whether the business has the right to discharge the worker, whether the work is part of the business’s regular business, the permanency of the relationship, and the relationship the parties believe they are creating. The Tax Court considered each of these seven factors and concluded that some favored independent contractor status and some favored employee status. The court then weighed the factors, giving greatest weight to the right to control.

In a Tax Court decision such as this, the taxpayer generally has the burden of proving that the IRS’s determination is incorrect. That burden was on the police officer in this case. In other words, the IRS’s determination that the officer was not an employee was presumed to be correct.

After weighing the factors, the Tax Court concluded that the police officer had failed to meet his burden of proof to establish his status as an employee. Therefore, the IRS’ position was upheld.

Although the Tax Court opinion does not say this, it is certainly possible that if the police officer had been claiming independent contractor status and the IRS had disagreed, the Tax Court may well have upheld the IRS’s position in that situation too. Because the elements are considered in an independent contractor/employee dispute can often support either conclusion, the burden of proof can be the deciding factor.

Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Stinson Leonard Street - Employee Benefits & Compensation | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.